text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
A New Jersey statute tolls the limitation period for an action against a foreign corporation that "is not represented" in New Jersey by any person or officer upon whom process may be served. In respondents' action against petitioner foreign corporation, originally brought in a New Jersey state court and removed to Federal District Court, petitioner moved for summary judgment based upon the applicable New Jersey statute of limitation, and respondents countered with the tolling provision. Although ruling that petitioner was not represented in New Jersey for purposes of the tolling provision, the District Court nevertheless held that the suit was barred. Reasoning that the tolling provision operated to preserve only causes of action against corporate defendants that were not subject to in personam jurisdiction in New Jersey, and that with the enactment of New Jersey's long-arm rule, the rationale for the pre-existing tolling provision ceased to exist, the District Court found the tolling provision invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed. That court's decision was based upon an intervening decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that, as a matter of New Jersey law, the tolling provision continued in force despite the advent of long-arm jurisdiction, and that such provision did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because the increased difficulty of out-of-state service provided a rational basis for tolling the statute of limitation in a suit against an unrepresented foreign corporation.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, and in Parts I and II of which BURGER, C. J., and POWELL, J., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C. J., joined, post, p. 414. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 420.
William P. Richmond argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was David W. Carpenter.
Walter R. Cohn argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. *
[ Footnote * ] Stephen J. Pollak, I. Michael Greenberger, and Franklin D. Kramer filed a brief for Brinco Mining Limited as amicus curiae urging reversal. Arthur Ian Miltz and Richard F. Gerry filed a brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America as amicus curiae urging affirmance.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
A New Jersey statute, N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-22 (West 1952), tolls the limitation period for an action against a foreign corporation that is amenable to jurisdiction in New Jersey courts but that has in New Jersey no person or officer upon whom process may be served. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this case held that the statute does not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. We agree, but we vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand the case for consideration of petitioner's Commerce Clause challenge to the statute.
Respondents, Susan and Walter Cohn, are husband and wife. In 1963, Susan Cohn suffered a stroke. Eleven years later, in 1974, the Cohns sued petitioner, G. D. Searle & Co., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, alleging that Susan Cohn's stroke was caused by her use of an oral [455 U.S. 404, 406] contraceptive manufactured by petitioner. 1 Petitioner was served under New Jersey's long-arm rule, N. J. Ct. Rule 4:4-4(c)(1) (1969). Petitioner removed the suit to federal court and thereafter moved for summary judgment based upon New Jersey's 2-year statute of limitation, N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:14-2 (West 1952), governing an "action at law for an injury to the person caused by . . . wrongful act." Respondents countered with 2A:14-22. That section tolls the statute of limitation for a cause of action against a foreign corporation that "is not represented" in New Jersey "by any person or officer upon whom summons or other original process may be served." 2
The District Court ruled that petitioner was not represented in New Jersey for the purposes of the tolling provision. 3 447 F. Supp. 903, 907-909 (NJ 1978). Nevertheless, [455 U.S. 404, 407] it held that respondents' suit was barred. According to the District Court, the tolling provision had operated to preserve only causes of action against corporate defendants that were not subject to in personam jurisdiction in New Jersey. With the enactment of New Jersey's long-arm rule, now N. J. Ct. Rule 4:4-4(c), 4 the rationale for the pre-existing tolling provision ceased to exist. On this reasoning, the court held that the tolling provision served no logical purpose, found it invalid under the Equal Protection Clause, and ruled that the 2-year statute of limitation therefore barred respondents' suit. 447 F. Supp., at 911-913.
Respondents appealed. Before the Court of Appeals reached a decision, however, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N. J. 282, 416 A. 2d 372 (1980), appeal pending, No. 80-629. That court ruled, as a matter of New Jersey law, that the tolling provision continued in force despite the advent of long-arm jurisdiction. In addition, the court concluded that the tolling provision did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the increased difficulty of out-of-state service provided a rational basis for tolling the statute of limitation in a suit against an unrepresented foreign corporation.
The Court of Appeals then followed the New Jersey Supreme Court's lead and reversed the District Court. 5 Summing up what it felt to be the rational basis for the tolling provision, the Court of Appeals explained: [455 U.S. 404, 408]
Like the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the New Jersey statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In the absence of a classification that is inherently invidious or that impinges upon fundamental rights, a state statute is to be upheld against equal protection attack if it is rationally related to the achievement of legitimate governmental ends. Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230 (1981). The New Jersey tolling provision need satisfy only this constitutional minimum. As the Court explained in Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314 (1945):
Petitioner insists that the tolling statute no longer is rationally related to a legitimate state objective. Repeating the argument it made below, petitioner claims that the statute's only purpose was to preserve causes of action for those New Jersey plaintiffs unable to obtain in personam jurisdiction over unrepresented foreign corporations. With the presence now of long-arm jurisdiction, petitioner contends, there is no longer a valid reason for tolling the limitation period for a suit against an amenable foreign corporation without a New Jersey representative.
We note at the outset, and in passing, that petitioner's argument fails as a matter of state law. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with petitioner's interpretation of the statute. That court observed that the State's original tolling provision did not mention corporations and thus treated them like all other defendants. In 1949, the state legislature amended the statute and exempted corporations except those foreign corporations "not represented" in New Jersey. The legislature, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized, did not limit the tolling provision to corporations "not amenable to service" in New Jersey. Consequently, the court reasoned, the tolling provision was not rendered meaningless by the subsequent acceptance of long-arm jurisdiction. Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N. J., at 288-293, 416 A. 2d, at 376-379. As construed by the highest judicial authority on New Jersey law, the meaning of the tolling statute cannot be confined as narrowly as petitioner would like. [455 U.S. 404, 410]
When the statute is examined under the Equal Protection Clause, it survives petitioner's constitutional challenge because rational reasons support tolling the limitation period for unrepresented foreign corporations despite the institution of long-arm jurisdiction in New Jersey. First, the unrepresented foreign corporation remains potentially difficult to locate. Long-arm jurisdiction does not alleviate this problem, since a New Jersey plaintiff must find the unrepresented foreign corporation before it can be served. See id., at 296, 416 A. 2d, at 380. It is true, of course, that respondents had little or no trouble locating this particular, well-known defendant-petitioner, but the tolling provision is premised on a reasonable assumption that unrepresented foreign corporations, as a general rule, may not be so easy to find and serve. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 780 -785 (1975).
Second, the institution of long-arm jurisdiction in New Jersey has not made service upon an unrepresented foreign corporation the equivalent of service upon a corporation with a New Jersey representative. The long-arm rule, N. J. Ct. Rule 4:4-4(c)(1) (1969), prescribes conditions upon extraterritorial service to ensure that New Jersey's long-arm jurisdiction has been properly invoked. In Velmohos, the New Jersey Supreme Court explained:
In response to these rationales for treating unrepresented foreign corporations differently from other corporations, petitioner argues that the tolling provision is unnecessary. Petitioner cites N. J. Ct. Rule 4:2-2 and contends that a plaintiff can preserve his cause of action against a hard-to-locate corporate defendant by filing a complaint and thereby halting the running of the limitation period. But this is not an adequate substitute for the tolling provision. A court may dismiss a case if it has not been prosecuted after six months, N. J. Ct. Rule 1:13-7, or if summons is not issued within 10 days of the filing of the complaint, N. J. Ct. Rule 4:4-1. In any event, a State may provide more than one solution for a perceived problem. The Court of Appeals appropriately commented: "Nothing in law or logic prevents the New Jersey legislature from providing New Jersey plaintiffs with a mechanism for relief from the burdens of suits against non-represented foreign corporations which is additional to any mechanism found in the Court Rules." 628 F.2d, at 811.
Petitioner also argues that a New Jersey plaintiff's burdens do not justify leaving a defendant open to suit without any time limit. In Velmohos, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court expressly authorized an unrepresented foreign corporation to plead another defense in response to a tardy suit. While the tolling provision denies an unrepresented foreign corporation the benefit of the statute of limitation, the corporation, the court stated flatly, remains free to plead laches. "If a plaintiff's delay is inexcusable and has resulted in prejudice to the defendant, the latter may raise the equitable defense of laches to bar the claim." 83 N. J., at 293, n. 10, 416 A. 2d, at 378, n. 10. Thus, under New Jersey law, an amenable, unrepresented foreign corporation may successfully raise a bar to a plaintiff's suit if the plaintiff's delay cannot be excused and the corporation has suffered "prejudice." [455 U.S. 404, 412]
In sum, because of the burdens connected with serving unrepresented foreign corporations, we agree with the Court of Appeals and the New Jersey Supreme Court that the tolling provision does not deprive an unrepresented foreign corporation of the equal protection of the laws. 7 See Dew v. Appleberry, 23 Cal. 3d 630, 591 P.2d 509 (1979) (holding similar tolling provision rationally related to a valid governmental interest); Vaughn v. Deitz, 430 S. W. 2d 487, 490 (Tex. 1968) (holding that absence from the State may, consistent with equal protection, support suspension of the statute of limitation). Cf. Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U.S. 647 (1893) (applying Kansas statute tolling limitation period for out-of-state defendant subject to service, without discussing the constitutional issue).
Petitioner, however, raises another constitutional challenge. The tolling provision as interpreted by the New Jersey [455 U.S. 404, 413] Supreme Court, petitioner argues, violates the Commerce Clause. Petitioner insists that, in order to obtain the benefit of the statute of limitation, it must obtain a certificate of authority by registering to do business in New Jersey. See N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:13-2 (West 1969). As a result, it will subject itself to all the duties and liabilities imposed on a domestic New Jersey corporation. Petitioner points out that it is engaged solely in interstate commerce in New Jersey, and, relying on cases such as Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U.S. 20 (1974), and Sioux Remedy Co. v. Cope, 235 U.S. 197 (1914), petitioner contends that New Jersey violates the Commerce Clause by requiring it to register to do business in New Jersey in order to gain the benefit of the statute of limitation. For two reasons, we decline to resolve this issue.
First, neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the question directly. There is no mention of the Commerce Clause in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In a footnote, the District Court suggested that the tolling provision would violate the Commerce Clause. 447 F. Supp., at 911, n. 17. But the District Court there was answering respondents' contention that the tolling provision was enacted as a penalty to induce corporations to register to do business in New Jersey, an argument respondents no longer make. 8 Thus, neither court considered the Commerce Clause argument in its present form.
Second, the Commerce Clause issue is clouded by an ambiguity in state law. The dispute over the Commerce Clause [455 U.S. 404, 414] centers in what seems to us to be an opaque footnote in the New Jersey Supreme Court's majority opinion in Velmohos. That court, without citation, commented: "We note that whatever hardship on foreign corporations might be caused by continued exposure to suit can be easily eliminated by the designation of an agent for service of process within the State." 83 N. J., at 293, n. 10, 416 A. 2d, at 378, n. 10. Petitioner, contending that there is no procedure in New Jersey for simply appointing an agent, interprets this sentence as requiring it to register to do business in New Jersey pursuant to N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:13-2 (West 1969) in order to obtain the benefit of the statute of limitation. Respondents, on the other hand, read the footnote as referring to the mere appointment of an agent, to be accomplished in some manner unexplained to us.
The lone sentence in the Velmohos footnote by itself does not clearly demonstrate the correctness of either view or lucidly inform us as to what the state law is. We consider it unwise for us to pass upon the constitutionality of this aspect of New Jersey law when we are uncertain of the critical footnote's meaning, particularly in light of the fact that the lower courts in this case did not address the Commerce Clause or the state-law issues. Consequently, we vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand the case, so that the Court of Appeals may determine whether petitioner's Commerce Clause argument, if it was properly raised below, has merit.
[ Footnote 2 ] Section 2A:14-22 reads in pertinent part: "If any person against whom there is any of the causes of action specified in sections 2A:14-1 to 2A:14-5 and 2A:14-8 . . . is not a resident of this state when such cause of action accrues, . . . or if any corporation . . . not organized under the laws of this state, against whom there is such a cause of action, is not represented in this state by any person or officer upon whom summons or other original process may be served, when such cause of action accrues or at any time before the expiration of the times so limited, the time or times during which such person . . . is not residing within this state or such corporation . . . is not so represented within this state shall not be computed as part of the periods of time within which such an action is required to be commenced by the section. The person entitled to any such action may commence the same after the accrual of the cause therefor, within the period of time limited therefor by said section, exclusive of such time or times of nonresidence or nonrepresentation."
[ Footnote 3 ] Petitioner had so-called "detailmen" in New Jersey. These were employees who promoted its products among New Jersey physicians. The District Court, contrary to petitioner's urging, held that the detailmen were not "persons" or "officers" for the purpose of the tolling provision, 447 F. Supp. 903, 906-907 (NJ 1978), and the Court of Appeals agreed, Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., 628 F.2d 801, 808 (CA3 1980). That holding is not disputed in this Court.
[ Footnote 4 ] New Jersey's long-arm service rule was promulgated in 1958 as N. J. Ct. R. R. 4:4-4(d). In 1971, the New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted the rule to permit extraterritorial service to the full extent allowed by the United States Constitution. Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58 N. J. 264, 277 A. 2d 207. See generally Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N. J. 282, 289-292, 416 A. 2d 372, 376-378 (1980), appeal pending, No. 80-629.
[ Footnote 5 ] The Court of Appeals' decision was on consolidated appeals of the instant case and Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 539 (NJ 1978), aff'd, 628 F.2d 801 (CA3 1980), cert. pending, No. 80-663. In Hopkins, a different New Jersey Federal District Judge had held the tolling provision to be consistent with the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
[ Footnote 6 ] Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner conceded that the tolling provision does not implicate a suspect classification. See 628 F.2d, at [455 U.S. 404, 409] 808-809. Before this Court, petitioner argues for a heightened level of scrutiny because it is a corporation not doing business in New Jersey and therefore is without a voice in the New Jersey Legislature. Only a rational basis, however, is required to support a distinction between foreign and domestic corporations. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California, 451 U.S. 648, 668 (1981). The same is true here where the tolling provision treats an unrepresented foreign corporation differently from a domestic corporation and from a foreign corporation having a New Jersey representative.
[ Footnote 7 ] Petitioner also presses a due process claim. In the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that the tolling statute violates due process "by unfairly and irrationally denying certain foreign corporations the benefit of the Statute of Limitations without furthering any legitimate societal interest." Brief for Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant in Nos. 79-2406 and 79-2605 (CA3), p. 29. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's due process challenge to the statute at the same time that it rejected petitioner's equal protection contention. See 628 F.2d, at 808-809. Indeed, this due process argument is nothing more than a restatement of petitioner's equal protection claim. See Velmohos, 83 N. J., at 297, 416 A. 2d, at 381. In this Court, petitioner has attempted to put forward a new due process argument. Petitioner notes that it can obtain the benefit of the statute of limitation by appointing an agent to accept service. See Velmohos, 83 N. J., at 293, n. 10, 416 A. 2d, at 378, n. 10; see also infra, at 413-414. Fearing that appointment of an agent might subject it to suit in New Jersey when there otherwise would not be the minimum contacts required for suit in that State under the Due Process Clause, see International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), petitioner insists that New Jersey law violates due process by conditioning the benefit of the limitation period upon the appointment of a New Jersey agent. Because petitioner did not present this argument to the Court of Appeals, we do not address it. See United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 898 (1975).
[ Footnote 8 ] At that time, respondents were seeking to supply a rational basis for the tolling provision by arguing that it was intended as a penalty to induce foreign corporations to obtain New Jersey licenses. The District Court rejected that interpretation of the tolling provision before suggesting that respondents' reading of the statute would violate the Commerce Clause. 447 F. Supp., at 911, n. 17. It seems to us that the District Court was on sound ground when it rejected this theory of the statute's origin, since there is no hint in Velmohos that the tolling provision was designed to be a penalty for failure to obtain a New Jersey license.
JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Parts I and II of the Court's opinion. In Part III of its opinion, the Court addresses the Commerce Clause question and "decline[s] to resolve" it because "neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals addressed the question directly." A further reason assigned by the Court for [455 U.S. 404, 415] remanding on this issue is that one sentence in a footnote to Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp., 83 N. J. 282, 293, n. 10, 416 A. 2d 372, 378, n. 10 (1980), is "ambiguous."
The Commerce Clause question was not presented to the District Court by petitioner, 1 and normally this would fully justify a remand. It was, however, presented and argued to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Pet. for Cert. 6-7. 2 Curiously, that court did not mention the question in its opinion. Petitioner continued, as it had a right to do, to rely on the ground. Its petition for certiorari expressly included the question whether New Jersey's tolling statute "constitutes the imposition of a burden [on] interstate commerce." Id., at i. With full knowledge that the Court of Appeals had ignored petitioner's Commerce Clause argument, we granted certiorari. Our grant did not limit the questions presented. See 451 U.S. 905 (1981). And respondents have not suggested that this question is not properly before us. Indeed, the issue was addressed at length by both parties in their briefs and in oral argument. In my view, the question is properly before us.
As I do not share the Court's view that ambiguity exists as to New Jersey law, I would decide the question on which we granted this case.
Petitioner argues that under New Jersey law the only way a foreign corporation may appoint an agent for service of process, and thereby obtain the benefit of the statute of limitations, is to obtain a certificate of authority to transact business [455 U.S. 404, 416] in the State. Respondents answer that other means of appointing such an agent - without qualifying to do business - are provided by New Jersey law. This difference between the parties is critical to the resolution of the Commerce Clause question, as significant consequences follow from registration. Neither Velmohos, nor any other New Jersey case brought to our attention, identifies any means - other than qualification - of appointing a duly authorized agent for service of process.
The Court perceives ambiguity in the following footnote in Velmohos:
Only three New Jersey statutes have been identified as relevant, one by petitioner and two by respondents.
Petitioner cites N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:4-1 and 14A:13-4 (West 1969). This is a conventional type of statute requiring the qualification of foreign corporations that transact business in the State. It includes the requirement of a registered agent. Section 14A:13-4(1) requires the foreign corporation to file in the office of the Secretary of State an application setting forth specified information, including the [455 U.S. 404, 417] name and address of the registered agent and "a statement that the registered agent is an agent of the corporation upon whom process against the corporation may be served."
Counsel for petitioner obtained - and filed with the Court - an opinion from the New Jersey Secretary of State advising, in effect, that the foregoing statute is the only means of designating a registered agent for service of process. 3
The Velmohos opinion itself suggests that this statute is the means by which a corporation must appoint an agent to gain the benefit of New Jersey's statute of limitations. In Velmohos, the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the legislative history of the tolling provision at issue in this case. As originally enacted, it simply tolled limitations periods while a person was not a resident of the State; there was no specific reference to corporations. The provision was amended in 1949 to add the current language, which grants the benefit of the statutes of limitations to foreign corporations that are "represented" in New Jersey. The Velmohos court quoted a portion of the 1949 legislative history: "`Foreign corporations licensed to do business in New Jersey are now deprived by judicial construction of the benefit of the statute of limitations. The purpose of this bill is to correct that situation.'" 83 N. J., at 290, 416 A. 2d, at 377, quoting Statement Accompanying Assembly No. 467 (1949) (emphasis added). See also Coons v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. of Japan, 176 N. J. Super. 575, 582, 424 A. 2d 446, 450 (1980), cert. pending, No. 80-2003. This reference to a conventional scheme of licensing foreign corporations is further confirmation [455 U.S. 404, 418] that 14A:4-1 et seq. are the means by which corporations are to gain relief from the disputed tolling provision.
Respondents are represented by New Jersey counsel. They do not dispute that statutory authority is necessary. Rather, they insist that the qualification statute is not the only statute authorizing appointment of a New Jersey agent for service. They cite two other statutes: the New Jersey fictitious corporate name statute, N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:2-2.1 (West Supp. 1981-1982), and the New Jersey business and partnership name registration statute. 56:1-1 (West 1964). Respondents cite no New Jersey case, and present no opinion from any state official, in support of their view that these statutes provide a means of appointing an agent for service without complying with 14A:4-1 et seq.
Neither of the statutes cited by respondents appears to have anything to do with the appointment by foreign corporations of agents for the service of process. The fictitious corporate name statute makes no reference either to appointment of agents of any type or to provisions for service of process. According to the accompanying comments of the New Jersey Corporation Law Revision Commission, "[t]he purpose of this [statute] is to create a public record of fictitious names used by corporations and thereby eliminate the possibility of deception." Commissioners' Comment - 1972 Amendment, reprinted after N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:2-2.1 (West Supp. 1981-1982). Moreover, counsel for respondents makes no claim that petitioner uses - or has ever used - a fictitious name in New Jersey.
The New Jersey business and partnership name registration law appears to be equally irrelevant. The New Jersey Corporation Law Revision Commission explains the relationship between these two fictitious name statutes:
Thus, counsel have brought to our attention only three statutes, and I have found no others. The registration statute, 14A:4-1 et seq., explicitly provides for the designation of an agent for service. Neither of the statutes relied on by respondents has any provision for the appointment of an agent by a foreign corporation. In these circumstances, we are justified in concluding - as the opinion from the office of the New Jersey Secretary of State advises - that foreign corporations may designate an agent for service of process only by obtaining a certificate of authority to do business.
This squarely presents the serious question whether the consequences of registration in the State, solely to obtain the protection of the statute of limitations, unduly burden interstate commerce. 5 See Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, [455 U.S. 404, 420] 419 U.S. 20 (1974). This challenge has considerable force. As this was a question on which we granted certiorari and as it has been fully argued by counsel, I think in all fairness we should decide it rather than remand the case for a continuation of this litigation.
I therefore dissent from the decision of the Court to remand.
[ Footnote 1 ] The District Court, apparently sua sponte, suggested that the tolling provision would violate the Commerce Clause but did not decide the question. See ante, at 413, and n. 8.
[ Footnote 2 ] Petitioner's assertion that it argued the Commerce Clause issue before the Court of Appeals is confirmed by its Third Circuit brief. See Brief for Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant G. D. Searle & Co. in Nos. 79-2406 and 79-2605 (CA3), pp. 2, 33-38.
[ Footnote 3 ] The opinion reads in full as follows: "In response to your recent letter, please be advised that it is the view of the Department of State that unless a foreign corporation has qualified to do business in New Jersey, they are unable to designate a registered agent for service of process." Letter from Frank Capece, Executive Assistant to the New Jersey Secretary of State, to James H. Freis, Esq. (Oct. 22, 1981).
[ Footnote 4 ] In addition to their facial inapplicability, it is apparent that both of these statutes are administered by the New Jersey Secretary of State - the same office that has advised that foreign corporations are unable to designate a registered agent for service of process without qualifying to do business. See n. 3, supra.
[ Footnote 5 ] Corporations that obtain such certificates apparently must maintain a registered business office, N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:4-1 (West Supp. 1981-1982); report annually, 14A:4-5 (West Supp. 1981-1982); and pay taxes, 54:10A-2 (West Supp. 1981-1982). In addition, New Jersey apparently also requires such corporations to waive their defense against defending lawsuits in a forum with which they have no minimum contacts, see International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), for all future lawsuits in New Jersey. See N. J. Stat. Ann. 14A:13-4(1)(d) (West 1969); Litton Industrial Systems, Inc. v. Kennedy Van Saun Corp., 117 N. J. Super. 52, 61, 283 A. 2d 551, 556 (1971). Cf. Restatement (Second) [455 U.S. 404, 420] of Conflict of Laws 44 and Comment a (1971) (States may exercise jurisdiction over foreign corporations that have authorized an agent to accept service of process to the extent of the agent's authority to accept service, even though no other basis for jurisdiction exists).
JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.
The equal protection question in this case is novel. I agree with the Court that there is a rational basis for treating unregistered foreign corporations differently from registered corporations because they are somewhat more difficult to locate and to serve with process. Thus, a provision that merely gave plaintiffs a fair opportunity to overcome these difficulties - for example, a longer period of limitations for suits against such corporations, or a tolling provision limited to corporations that had not filed their current address with the Secretary of State - would unquestionably be permissible. But does it follow that it is also rational to deny such corporations the benefit of any statute of limitations? Because there is a rational basis for some differential treatment, does it automatically follow that any differential treatment is constitutionally permissible? I think not; in my view the Constitution requires a rational basis for the special burden imposed on the disfavored class as well as a reason for treating that class differently.
The Court avoids these troubling questions by noting that the New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that an unrepresented foreign corporation may plead the defense of laches in an appropriate case. Ante, at 411. But there are material [455 U.S. 404, 421] differences between laches - which requires the defendant to prove inexcusable delay and prejudice - and the bar of limitations, which requires no such proof. Thus, the availability of this alternative defense neither eliminates the differential treatment nor provides a justification for it; the defense merely lessens its adverse consequences.
I can find no legitimate state purpose to justify the special burden imposed on unregistered foreign corporations by the challenged statute. * I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
[ Footnote * ] I do not understand the Court to be holding that New Jersey has a legitimate interest in attempting to require all corporations to submit in all cases to the jurisdiction of its courts, and that discrimination against unregistered foreign corporations is justified by the State's desire to accomplish this purpose. Since a State may not enact a law that prohibits a foreign corporation from asserting a due process defense to an exercise of personal jurisdiction by a state court, I do not believe that the State may justify a classification that disfavors unregistered foreign corporations on the ground that they refused to take action that would accomplish the same purpose. See Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Equalization of California, 451 U.S. 648, 674 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). [455 U.S. 404, 422]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 455 U.S. 404
Docket No: No. 80-644
Argued: December 07, 1981
Decided: February 24, 1982
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
The theatrical event in which famous actors and musicians read out memorable real letters from history is coming to America with such celebrities as Minnie Driver, Stephen Fry, Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Hamill.
Letters Live will make its U.S. debut Feb. 26 at the Ace Hotel in Los Angeles. Ticket prices range from $50 to $200, with all profits going to charities.
Others slated to appear include Jarvis Cocker, James Corden, Anjelica Huston, Catherine Keener, Shirley Manson, Ian McShane and Annabelle Wallis.
Benedict Cumberbatch, who is a producer, says the letters are "windows into the love, beauty, pain and humor of their creators and recipients."
The event started in London in 2013, inspired by Shaun Usher's bestselling "Letters of Note" series and Simon Garfield's "To the Letter."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Zune Marketplace Semi-Live in Canada, Official soon?
Posted by Adam Krebs in "Zune Media" @ 01:45 PM
"So as you now know, traces of the Canadian music Marketplace have shown up a few times quite late at night. This time though, I was able to pull a digital "stakeout" and dig a bit deeper into the availability. As I had previously posted, purchases and individual artist pages were unavailable and would throw an error message back to me, yielding nothing usable or interesting. Last night at 11:24 pm I tried a search for The Bird and the Bee and to my surprise, it showed up with a picture and the artist's albums available on the Marketplace. Before the network went back down I clicked on a song that I wanted to purchase and viola! It worked! No error message telling me that those services "are not available in my region." The song downloaded without error and I have officially purchased my first song through the Zune Marketplace."
While Zune users in the U.S. have had the ability to buy and rent music, movies, and TV shows for as long as they've been offered on the Marketplace, international users (like our own Jason Dunn, from Canada) have generally been treated like second-class citizens, gaining access several years late or not at all. The situation was fixed somewhat in 2009 with the introduction of Movies and TV shows to Canada, U.K., France, Italy, and others, but still no music store. This seems to be changing, as Zunited's Josh Martin noticed that the Marketplace was often live in Canada during the night, an indication of them testing the service for a possible upcoming launch. That he was able to search for and purchase music is definitely a good sign of an international launch, but it seems a bit odd they'd flip the switch to allow public users before making an official announcement. Here's hoping we hear something soon. The Marketplace needs to go international. And fast.
- Read
- Discuss [1 reply]
- Permalink
- Source: The Next Web


text:
This webinar has ended. You may view the recording below.
You can dot the i(nternet) now learn how to cross the T's to maximize profits!
Dealerships all over the world invest millions of dollars and still struggle with making the (i)nternet work for them. This presentation will provide a roadmap on how to get from ground zero to the moon. Crossing the T's starts with understanding the all hands on line process and then moving through simple easy to understand steps to go from good – to great – to excellent.
Once a dealership memorializes its philosophy and has buy in from the top to the bottom of the organization the next step in ensuring the right people are in place and have what they need to succeed. Finally, process must be intuitive and Transparent (oops one of the T words) to make things happen efficiently.
Don't start any day out in 2013 without variable ops and fixed ops on the same page and crossing the T's makes it happen effortlessly generating a better ROI and Team (oops I did it again) work.
PRESENTER: Ray Fenster is the President & CEO of RayFenster.com, a social business firm specializing in automotive, health care, real estate & government markets. Ray has spent most of his working life in the digital space with specific expertise in several ecommerce verticals for product development, research, sales and service operations working with large data sets. As a Digital Director and executive, Ray pioneered cutting edge applications for vendors and OEMs such as; Reynolds, ADP, Dealerskins, Blackbook, Carfax, eBay, AULtec, Autobytel, Ford, Lexus, Saturn, etc… Ray was one of the first digital professionals that moved ecommerce and the use of data into Service Operations and Inbound and Outbound marketing/advertising including Social Media Management Systems. Ray continues to coach personnel and has provided training to many of the top Internet managers in the country. Ray is a regular contributor to several publications, has presented at numerous popular workshops, forums, and conventions and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Rick Steiner is currently in the middle of a legal battle with Exxon Mobil Corp. over the company's reneging on a cleanup agreement stemming from its oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound over 22 years ago.
Steiner, an independent consultant of conservation biology and formerly a professor and marine conservation specialist at the University of Alaska,filed an amicus brief in October to compel the government to demand payment from Exxon.
Litigation against Exxon began in 1991 when the State of Alaska and the Justice Department demanded the company pay for the impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound. In the lawsuit, Exxon agreed to pay $900 million over ten years for the cleanup costs, which they did. However, the settlement also included a "reopener clause," which would allot $100 million of the settlement to unforeseen harms in the future (or until the clause expired in 2006).
Curiously, even though both the Department of Justice and the State of Alaska sought the additional funds back in 2006, five years later, they are not holding Exxon Mobil accountable to its promise to pay.
Peter Van Tuyn is an environmental attorney in Alaska and previously held a position as the director of litigation for the trustees for Alaska where he helped push the initial legal pressure against Exxon in the reopener case.
He believes the government is not pushing hard to collect the money Exxon promised because in doing so, uncomfortable questions would raised about official policies. "If the government were to publicly hold Exxon accountable, the general population would have to re-examine this country's relationship to fossil fuels and transportation policy," he said.
Citing the lingering damages to the environment due to the 1989 spill, Steiner was essentially the only party demanding accountability from the oil company. But the District Court in Anchorage denied his amicus.
"Exxon does not want to pay a dime; the governments say they want to 'study it some more,' knowing they have no case; and the court that approved the provision twenty years ago says now it has no hand here. Everyone is running for cover on this – a real insult to the public interest," Steiner said.
Jeff Ruch is the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER has recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice asking that it reveal the studies it says are completed or near completion. "If we do not get the requested material by next month, we will likely sue for violation of FOIA," Ruch said.
There is a six-year statute of limitation that extinguishes the reopener claim entirely next summer. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the grounds that the case was still in litigation; however, the US District Court in Anchorage has set the next, perhaps final hearing in the case for November 15.
According to Steiner, now that his amicus has been thrown out, the outcome will boil down to the court either ruling in Exxon's favor and dismissing the case altogether, or ruling in the government's favor and indefinitely delaying any action.
Exxon Mobil Defends Refusal to Pay Remaining Oil Spill Damages
Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for Exxon Mobil Corp. said that the company does not think it should pay the reopener money due to the wording of the 1991 settlement:
"Between September 1, 2002 and September 1, 2006, Exxon shall pay to the Governments such additional sums as are required for the performance of restoration projects in Prince William Sound and other areas affected by the Oil Spill to restore one or more populations, habitats or species which, as a result of the Oil Spill, have suffered a substantial loss or substantial decline in the areas affected by the Oil Spill; provided, however, that for a restoration project to qualify for payment under this paragraph the project must meet the following requirements:
(a) the cost of a restoration project must not be grossly disproportionate to the magnitude of the benefits anticipated from the remediation; and (b) the injury to the affected population, habitat, or species could not reasonably have been known nor could it reasonably have been anticipated by any Trustee from any information in the possession of or reasonably available to any trustee on the Effective Date."
"The bottom line," Jeffers said, "is that the reopener clause was insurance against a catastrophic failure of species." Asked if he thought the herring population collapse in Prince William Sound after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill would be enough to invoke the clause, he denied it, saying that the cause of the herring species collapse was undetermined and could not be conclusively linked back to the oil spill.
Semantics, Political Pressure May Lead to Oil Company Win
Van Tuyn cites this same issue of semantics as the likeliest reason Exxon Mobil Corp would win the case. He goes on to say that if the US District Court in Anchorage dismisses the case against Exxon, there would be implications for all such agreements in the energy industry. "Unless you have an ironclad agreement up front, you can't count on this industry to fulfill its promises later on," he said.
Steiner notes a political relationship in Alaska, which could be a major influence in the outcome of the case: Alaska's current governor is Republican Sean Parnell, who worked for the lobbying firm Patton Boggs, which represents Exxon in all Exxon Valdez matters, including the reopener claim from 2006.
Jeff Ruch agrees that politics are at play when it comes to the failure of the government to hold Exxon accountable. "The position of the Obama Justice Department has not changed a whit from that of the Bush Department of Justice … both governments are seeking to open even more sensitive Alaskan waters to oil and gas development. If it cannot compensate for the effects of this tanker spill in the period of a generation, it raises troubling questions about the prudence of their current stances to open the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf."
The one thing Steiner and the oil company can agree on, it seems, is the difference between "cleanup" and "restoration" – the semantics used by Exxon to deny responsibility for any further payment.
"The $92 million government request from 2006 was for more beach cleanup, but Exxon objects to paying it, and wants the claim dismissed entirely," Steiner said. "Restoration implies a return to the way the environment was before the spill and that isn't likely to happen. Oil spills can last for decades and there is always the possibility the environmental damage can be permanent. Prince William Sound will never be the same again."
Steiner opposes the proposed "cleanup" plan, arguing that the reopener funds would be better used toward long-term conservation efforts, such as additional habitat protection and marine protected areas.
"It's hard to imagine how more beach cleanup now would be beneficial," Steiner said. "The additional disturbance to the many struggling wildlife populations, together with the considerable amount of oil that would be remobilized into coastal waters by the cleanup, would likely negate any potential benefit." Steiner added that if beach cleanup were truly beneficial to recovery, Exxon should follow the "Polluter Pays Principle," which means that Exxon would be responsible for paying for the damage outside of the reopener clause.
According to Steiner, the 1991 $1 billion settlement with Exxon was the largest attempt in history to restore the environment and reduce the damage caused by the oil spill. This sounds like a lot to you or me, but it is actually small peanuts in the context of Exxon Mobil's profits and one wonders why Exxon is fighting against paying a "measly" $92 million for lingering damages – even less than the sum it agreed to pay under the reopener clause.
It seems like the real "friend of the court" is Exxon itself. In 1994, a separate suit was brought against the company by Alaskan natives for economic damage suffered by the plaintiffs.
An Alaskan court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, demanding $5 billion in punitive damage awards. After spending hundreds of millions of dollars appealing the ruling, a lower court reduced the verdict to $2.5 billion. Then in 2008, the US Supreme Court overturned the verdict, ruling 5 to 3 that $2.5 billion in punitive damages was "excessive" punishment for the multibillion dollar profiteering oil company and further reduced punitive damages to $500 million.
What this means is that punitive damages, which are essentially punishment fines, cannot exceed compensatory damages the company had already been ordered to pay. The compensatory damages are more or less for the short-term harm caused to the community by the disaster, while the punitive damage money is linked more toward preventing similar negligence in the future.
Community activist and author Riki Ott notes the ominous implications of the Supreme Court case: "By minimizing financial liability – a powerful incentive for corporations to abide by the law – the Supreme Court's ruling practically guarantees that there will be many more such industrial disasters." This ruling also sets a precedent limiting the size of punitive damages in maritime cases and Ott worries that this will soon be extended to other fields of law.


text:
The teens are being held in the death of 17-year-old Ivan Mejia, a senior at Wylie East High School, northeast of Dallas. Mejia's death comes two years after another Wylie East student was killed, and a fellow teenager was sentenced in that case.
Authorities said in court Monday that the boys choked Mejia to death, and that the victim and one of the boys appeared to be involved with the same girl, local media reported. A judge in suburban Collin County ordered that the teens be kept in detention.
A 911 call Saturday about a car veering off a highway led police to a wooded area in Garland, south of Wylie, where authorities say they spotted the teens. Police said that when the two were interrogated, the boys said they were trying to get rid of Mejia's body.
Police say Mejia had been killed on a road behind the Wylie school.
The two boys, who are juniors at Wylie East, were not identified because they are juveniles. They were being held in Collin County juvenile detention and face murder charges, Wylie Police Sgt. Donna Valdepena said Monday.
She said it was clear Mejia had been targeted by the boys and that there could be other potential suspects in his death.
"This was planned," Valdepena said. "We do have evidence that it was pre-planned."
Valdepena said an autopsy is pending.
Mejia was remembered by friends for his ambition to help others and to one day join the Marines.
Enrique Hernandez, a 17-year-old resident of nearby Frisco, Texas, went to church with Mejia and remembers seeing him wear his ROTC uniform.
"He had trained to go to the Marines and was awaiting his shipment date," Hernandez said in an email. "He had previously promised his mom that he would come back from the Marines safely."
Hernandez said Mejia was someone who worried about others and was quick to lend a helping hand.
"He had so many people he could help and he tried to help them all," Hernandez said.
Wylie East student Nahum Martinez, 15, was fatally shot two years ago and left near a storm drain. A 15-year-old teen involved in trying to hide Martinez's body was given 15 years in prison last year.
Valdepena said police were not concerned about the safety situation at Wylie East.
"This did not involve the school in any manner," she said Monday.
Ian Halperin, a spokesman for the Wylie school district, said the high school would make counselors available for students when they return from spring break next week.
"The entire Wylie ISD community is shocked and saddened by this senseless act," Halperin said. "We are cooperating with the police as they investigate, and we hope they will be able to provide us with some understanding of how this tragedy unfolded."


text:
DO: write something.
I didn't always want to be a writer. First it was an astronaut, then archeologist, and then about a hundred other things. But I started keeping a journal in middle school and I never stopped – I have boxes of them stored away, a somewhat haunting record of everything I've been through.
It wasn't until a few years ago that I started to seriously consider writing as a profession, and it was something Charles Bukowski wrote that actually had a huge impact on me. In "Tales of Ordinary Madness," he wrote that you don't choose to be a writer, it chooses you. As simple as that may sound, it rang so true… all my life I had been compelled to put my thoughts down on paper and subconsciously I was drawn to it as a profession. It wasn't a decision that I made, it was a natural evolution that led me to where I am today.
Everyday life tends to create clutter in my head, hundreds of thoughts and emotions swirling around, bumping into each other and the only way to clear my head is put them down on paper. Try it today and see if it works for you too – write something. It doesn't have to be long, it can be about anything you want – it can even be something you just made up. Write it down – put it on paper, and see how it makes you feel.
"If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery–isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it. And, you'll do it, despite rejection and the worst odds. And it will be better than anything else you can imagine. If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is."
– Charles Bukowski


text:
Trump says chief of staff John Kelly to leave at year's end
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump evaluated new candidates to serve as his next chief of staff Sunday after plans for an orderly succession for departing John Kelly fell through.
The new hire was to be key to a West Wing reshuffling to shift focus toward the 2020 re-election campaign and the challenge of governing with Democrats in control of the House.
But even senior White House officials were caught off guard Sunday when Trump and Nick Ayers, whose hiring was believed to be a done deal, couldn't come to terms. No obvious successor was in sight and there was some fretting that Trump may not be able to fill the job by the time Kelly was set to leave around year's end.
Ayers, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, was seen as the favorite for the job when Trump announced Saturday that Kelly would step down. But a White House official said Sunday that Trump and Ayers could not reach agreement on Ayers' length of service and that he would instead assist the president from outside the administration.
Ayers confirmed the decision in a tweet, thanking Trump and Pence for giving him the opportunity to work in the White House. "I will be departing at the end of the year but will work with the #MAGA team to advance the cause," he said.
In a tweet of his own, Trump laid out the agenda: "I am in the process of interviewing some really great people for the position of White House Chief of Staff. Fake News has been saying with certainty it was Nick Ayers, a spectacular person who will always be with our #MAGA agenda. I will be making a decision soon!"
With Ayers out of the running, Trump was considering four candidates for the post, including Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney, according to a person familiar with the president's thinking. Also emerging as a candidate was Rep. Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican and the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.
But Mulvaney was not interested in becoming chief of staff, according to a person close to him who spoke on condition of anonymity. Mulvaney has been saying for almost two months now that he would be more interested in becoming commerce or treasury secretary if that would be helpful to the president, the person said.
Also among those thought to be in the mix were Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who said in a CBS interview that he hadn't spoken to anyone at the White House about the job and was "entirely focused" on his position. A person familiar with Mnuchin's thinking said he, too, was happy with his work at Treasury and had not sought the job of chief of staff.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and Trump's former deputy campaign manager, David Bossie, were also among the names being floated by those close to the White House.
Trump wants his next chief of staff to hold the job through the 2020 election, said the White House official, who was not authorized to discuss the personnel issue by name and, as did others, spoke on condition of anonymity.
Ayers and Trump had discussed the job for months. The father of young triplets, he had long planned to leave the administration at the end of the year, and had only agreed to serve in an interim basis through next spring.
Ayers will run a pro-Trump super PAC, according to a person familiar with his plans who was not authorized to discuss them by name.
Kelly, whose last day on the job is set to be Jan. 2, had been credited with imposing order on a chaotic West Wing after his arrival in June 2017 from his post as homeland security secretary. But his iron fist also alienated some longtime Trump allies, and over time he grew increasingly isolated, with an increasingly diminished role.
Follow Miller on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller
The Western Journal has not reviewed this Associated Press story prior to publication. Therefore, it may contain editorial bias or may in some other way not meet our normal editorial standards. It is provided to our readers as a service from The Western Journal.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


text:
Campus Emergency Procedures
Emergency Plans
NOVA Police Officers are usually the first responders to incidents along with law enforcement and fire/EMS personnel from the municipality. When multiple agencies respond, the agencies work together to manage the event. The Crisis Communication Protocols provide specific information concerning the details of how NOVA manages communications during the emergency.
Faculty and staff also provide leadership for students' safe and efficient reaction to an emergency. The NOVA Emergency Action Plan provides faculty and staff with needed information in case of an emergency. It provides details on who to contact in the event of an emergency and the procedures to follow for a variety of incidents.
To review the specifics of NOVA's Emergency Action Plan or Crisis Communication Protocols, click on the links to these documents:
- Determine the most reasonable way to protect your own life and call 911 or NOVA Police at 703.764.5000.
- Activate fire alarms. If there are no fire alarms, knock on doors and yell "FIRE" as you exit the building.
- Call 911 if possible.
- Feel doors with the back of your hand before opening. DO NOT open if doors are hot.
- DO NOT use elevators.
- If time, conditions and safety permit take your personal belongings with you.
- Evacuate the building.
- If clothing catches fire, STOP...DROP...ROLL.
- Once outside, move away from the building and to a designated Assembly Area.
- DO NOT re-enter buildings until instructed to do so.
If someone requires immediate medical attention:
- Call or have someone else call 911 right away and report the emergency.
- Provide first aid and medical assistance as necessary, if trained.
- Follow instructions of the Emergency Dispatcher. DO NOT hang up until the Dispatcher ends the call.
- DO NOT move the victim, unless they are in immediate danger.
- If the victim is conscious, try to comfort him/her and obtain medical information (ex. medical problems, medications, etc.). Any medical information will assist medical personnel if the victim loses consciousness.
- Have someone meet the ambulance at the building entrance or at a safe location, and direct emergency personnel to the victim.
- Contact NOVA Police at 703.764.5000 to advise them of the situation.
Suspicious Person
- DO NOT physically confront the person.
- DO NOT let anyone into a locked building/office.
- DO NOT block the person's access to an exit.
- Call 911 or 703.764.5000. Provide as much information as possible about the person and his or her direction of travel.
Suspicious Package
- DO NOT handle or touch the suspicious item/package.
- DO NOT use a cell phone, radio or other transmitter.
- Persons should be evacuated from around the item.
- Retreat to a safe location and call Campus Police at 703.764.5000.
- Be prepared to evacuate and take your personal belongings with you.
- It is important that employees and students are always cognizant and do not leave brief cases, backpacks, handbags, etc. unattended. These items could be construed as suspicious and cause undue time, energy and expense to determine that the item is "safe". They may be destroyed.
- Call 911 or NOVA Police at 703.764.5000.
- DO NOT use cellular phones or two-way radios.
- DO NOT activate the fire alarm system to evacuate.
- Shelter in place or evacuate the building as directed.
- DO NOT re-enter the building until cleared by authorized personnel.
- Untrained persons should not try to rescue people.
- If you are indoors, DROP to the floor. Stay there until the shaking has stopped and you are sure exiting is safe.
- COVER by getting under a sturdy table or other piece of furniture.
- HOLD ON until the shaking stops. If there isn't a table or desk near you, cover your face and head with your arms and crouch in an inside corner of the building.
- Stay away from glass, windows, outside doors and walls and anything that could fall, such as lighting fixtures or furniture.
- Don't use a doorway except if you know that it's a strongly supported, load-bearing doorway and it's close to you. Many inside doorways are lightly constructed and don't offer protection.
- Be aware that the electricity may go out or the sprinkler systems or fire alarms may turn on.
- DO NOT use elevators.
- If you are outdoors, stay there. Move away from buildings, overhangs, trees and power lines to a clear area such as a large open public area or field.
- If you are in a moving vehicle, stop as quickly as safety permits and stay in the vehicle. Avoid stopping near or under buildings or trees.
After the Earthquake
Once the shaking stops:
- Exit the building when safety permits and move to the designated assembly area.
- Use emergency exit route information posted throughout the building to determine the quickest route out.
- Expect aftershocks.
- Only use the telephone for emergency calls.
- Be aware that utilities such as gas, power and water lines may be damaged. If you know of damaged utilities, report the issue.
- Wait for instructions from wardens, officials and police.
- Move away from the site of the hazard to a safe location (up wind if possible).
- Call 911.
- Follow instructions of Emergency Personnel.
- Alert others to stay clear of the area.
- Notify Emergency Personnel if you have been exposed to the hazard or have information about its release.
- Remain Calm.
- Move cautiously to a lighted area. Exits may be indicated by lighted signs, if the emergency power is operating.
- Provide assistance to others.
- Evacuate the building only if directed to do so.
- Exit calmly and carefully.
- DO NOT re-enter building until authorized.
- Monitor NOVA Alert and Media Outlets for campus closings, delays or updates.
If the area is under a Severe Weather or Tornado WARNING, seek shelter immediately.
- Go immediately to:
- The nearest Severe Weather Shelter Area
OR - An appropriate area that will provide protection -- closets, interior rooms, interior hallways, areas free of windows or glass.
- The nearest Severe Weather Shelter Area
- Stay away from corners, windows, doors and outside walls.
- Put as many walls as possible between you and the outside.
- Use your arms to protect your head and neck. Protect your body from flying debris with any available furniture or sturdy equipment.
- If you are outside with no shelter, consider these options:
- Immediately get into a vehicle, buckle your seat belt and try to drive to the closest sturdy shelter. If you are unable to get to a sturdy shelter, stay in the car with the seat belt on. Put your head down below the windows; cover your head with your hands and a blanket, coat or other cushion, if possible.
- If you are outside and unable to get to a car or a building for protection, move away from the tornado's path at a right angle. If there is no time to escape, lie flat in the nearest depression (ex. ditch or ravine). Cover your head with your arms.


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
Wunderkind starts robot-buster weapons firm
Noel Sharkey backs RoTM droid-defence biz bonanza
Famed dotcom 1.0 teen millionaire Ben Way has started a company specialising in anti-robot weaponry. Way foresees lucrative business opportunities in suppressing the inevitable rogue killbots and machine rebellions to be expected in coming years.
The new company, WAR Defence (Weapons Against Robots) was launched this week.
"The use of robotics in the military is on the up," said Way in a statement.
"Although the decision to take human life is currently still taken by another human, before long such decisions will be made ... within a robot.
"Within 15 years robots will be commonplace in the home, and in just another 15 it is likely that they will have the same physical abilities as humans.
"Potentially the consequences of a computer crashing could be devastating. Hence, robotic defence is not just necessary for tackling combatants, but potentially for making sure we have control over our own weaponry."
The techbiz wunderkind, who left school at 16, is now in his late 20s and handles an array of techy ventures via his London-based Rainmakers operation (sample quote: "What we do is not easy to sum up; we invent, create and connect...")
Apart from the new robo-busting venture, Rainmakers is also instrumental in a web-to-mail application referred to as "post over internet protocol", a firm of green plumbers who arrive in electric vans and similar flava-du-jour notionry projects. WAR Defence thus far appears to have little substance beyond the Rainmakers phone number and a flash-heavy, info-lite website.
Nonetheless, the company assures the soon-to-be-annihilated population that it is engaged in all kinds of hefty droid-defence tech development. Promised goodies include "Autonomous-Against-Autonomous" and "Biological-Against-Autonomous" weaponry, plus "real-time detection systems" with "HUD integration" and "pattern movement tracking" to scan for "robotic entities".
If these don't stem the tide of malignant mayhem-minded mechanoids bent upon humanity's overthrow, WAR Defence promises "robo viruses" able to "infiltrate and control" the enemy droids; or alternatively you might be interested in some "molten metal ballistics".
Astonishingly, Way reckons that he's already in product development on the legendary, circuitry-frying electropulse/high-powered-microwave bomb. Despite the fact that even the mighty US military don't see any such programme starting until 2012 - assuming success in ongoing basic-principles research - WAR Defence says it is already working on the Electric Storm-AX1, a "simple to use microwave high energy device that disrupts and destroys nearby electrical systems". Even more remarkably, according to the accompanying graphic the Storm-AX1 appears to run on clockwork.
By now it will come as no surprise that Way's efforts to defend humanity against the coming frenzy of automated slaughter have won authoritative backing from Professor Noel Sharkey of Sheffield Uni. Sharkey (sample quote: "I can imagine a little girl being zapped because she points her ice cream at a robot to share") is well-known for his colourful robopocalypse warnings.
Speaking of Way's WAR Defence effort, the media'n'AI prof said that the planned virus plagues, pulse bombs and robot sniffers would surely come in handy when the machine praetorians of tomorrow's corrupt human polities inevitably turn on their jaded fleshy overlords.
"This is the first real response that I have seen to the predicted rise in the use of autonomous military robots," said the arm-waving prof, quoted by Way. "It testifies to the dangerous slippery slope that we seem to be inevitably sliding down.
"Ben Way has certainly picked up on the magnitude of the impending threat ... I really hope that it does not come down to the use of these devices."
According to the WAR Defence press release:
WAR Defence is the world's first defence company specifically targeted at protecting us against the current and emerging threats posed by robotics and is said to be already in talks with several Government defence agencies.
(Our emphasis.)
We phoned up WAR Defence and asked who had said they were in talks with several government defence agencies, and whether it was true. A company spokesperson said "I don't know", and promised to get back to us. Company PR later confirmed that this was a question which could only be answered by Mr Way himself, but he couldn't be reached just then.
As of publication we haven't heard anything further. ®


text:
I was a dog mama long before I was a people mama.
The fur-baby that stole my heart was 165 pounds of Blue Merle muscle–a majestic Great Dane named Roscoe.
Roscoe was more than a dog–he was a full-on family member. He got me through several moves, a difficult divorce, and countless single nights when every creak and crack in my big empty house kept me up at night.
I knew that my beautiful behemoth of a dog was special, but I never truly appreciated his full worth until he became a watchdog for not just me, but for my baby boy, as well.
When our little bundle came home from the hospital two years ago, Roscoe didn't complain–even when he got moved from his cozy living room corner to a bed in the heated garage. (It was the baby's turn to nap in that nice warm spot by the fireplace, you see.)
So, he let him.
Somehow from day one, Roscoe knew it was his job to watch over that little boy, and watch over him he did.
For two blessed years.
Sadly–we just buried our almost 12-year-old, geriatric gentle giant a week ago, under a big cottonwood on the family farm. I know his spirit will keep on watching over all of us–especially Hank, who over the last two years had become his very best friend. Those two sweet boys taught me some pretty big life lessons–one of which is how meaningful animals can be to little people.
I hope that as you read along, you nod in agreement because your little ones have a furry friend to love on like Hank did. But if you haven't gotten a pet for your child or children (yet!), dear reader, here are five reasons why you may want to consider it.
1. Companionship
Our big dog and our little boy were two peas in a pod. Anywhere the toddler went, the dog was sure to follow. And vice versa. On the swingset, digging in the dirt, playing ball on the lawn, picking strawberries– these two adored each other's company. We couldn't go for a walk unless Roscoe came with us, even when it meant he had to give up his beloved afternoon nap.
If Hank could have slept on Roscoe's dog bed with him every night, he absolutely would have.
2. Responsibility
From the time he could walk, our toddler helped me with all of our dog chores. He understood the first thing we did each morning was let Roscoe out, and he looked forward to it every day. He helped me fill his food and water bowls, and he even helped me clean up the "land mines" in the yard. (He was the "locator," and I ran the shovel.)
Having a dog taught our toddler a world of responsibility, and most importantly, it taught him how to care for a loved one.
3. Teachable Moments
From learning a universal nickname for dogs–"Coco"–to learning that dogs will do almost anything for a milk-bone; our gentle giant was also a wonderful teacher for our little boy. He taught him dogs don't really like to be ridden like horses, even if they are the perfect size. He taught him "woof" means "come open the door please." He taught him that Great Danes make wonderful pillows for naps on the lawn. He taught him it is important to hold still when you are getting your toenails clipped. He taught him that sometimes when we get old, our bodies just can't keep up anymore. He taught him that even though saying goodbye is scary and hard, it is something we can get through.
He also taught him the true meaning of the phrase "loyal friend."
4. Protection
Our huge dog kept an amazing eye on our little boy. Roscoe was Hank's shadow, never venturing more than 10 or 15 feet away from the tornado toddler, even when that meant a LOT of getting up and laying back down! I loved knowing whenever I watered flowers or weeded beds in the yard, I had an extra set of eyes on Hank while he played.
Roscoe truly loved his "job," and Hank loved having his own personal watchdog.
5. Lifelong Memories
Even though he is gone now, Hank still talks about his big buddy "Coco" everyday. Any dog we see gets a chubby little finger point and a loving "Coco!" exclaimed with a huge smile. Whenever I tear up or mention how much I miss Roscoe, Hank grabs his stuffed puppy and gives me a kiss with it. I have countless amazing pictures of these two together, and I will never forget their two years filled with those special moments. Their relationship–although much too short–gave all of us a lifetime of heartwarming memories, which I thank God for every day.
There's nothing quite like the magic of big dogs and little children.
So please, if you have a family dog, let your little ones climb all over him, even when he's a little bit muddy. Let them snuggle up to him and get those trademark slobbery dog kisses, right on their little faces. Let them help carry the water bucket, even though it splashes all over the garage floor.
I promise– it'll all be worth it.
And if you don't have a family dog?
Then someday–if only for your kids' sake–I hope you'll change your mind.


text:
A handsome study room makeover from Tum. Good thing, Noodle, the dog, doesn't tear everything apart, when he's kept in there.
"We wanted to remodel one of our rooms to a study or office. We also needed it to hold our dog when we're not home. It uses a Besta cabinet and underframe, Vika Hyttan stainless table top, Vika Amon tabletops in Black-Brown (used for the lower backing to hide the cables, and the backing above the stainless top), Vika Inge legs to hold up the back of the top (two brackets hold up the front), Basisk lights above the desk, Grono table lamps above the cabinets, Solsta sofabed, Lack coffee table, rug (can't remember the name discontinued), Target floor lamp. Also various screws, L brackets to hold everything together, waterproof mattress pad and bed sheets used to cover the sofabed so that it's easy to clean. The Solsta doesn't come with a removable cover."
Here are more details of Tum's remodel.


text:
Did you know? Customs & Border Protection to Begin Retroactive Billing for Merchandise Processing Fee Increase
This "Did You Know?" is brought to you by Mainfreight International, Inc – and is designed to help you and your supply chain navigate changing rules and regulations.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced that it will begin billing importers for the Merchandise Processing Fee increase that went into effect October 1st 2011.
The problem: The law was signed by the President in the 3rd week of October 2011, but the MPF, which was increased from 0.21% to 0.3464% of a shipment's value. This was done as a form of "Paygo" – to pay for the retroactive extension of the Generalized System of Preference (a duty preference program for developing countries), the MPF was increased as well.
The problem is that the Congress made the fee increase retroactively effective to Oct. 1, 2011. However, CBP's system was not able to accept the new MPF rate until Nov. 5. At that time we expected CBP to issue retroactive billings. However, CBP wasn't able to do so for merchandise entered between Oct. 1 and Nov. 4 until the refund processing was completed for the Generalized System of Preferences, Andean Trade Preference Act and Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act retroactive renewals that were part of the same legislative package.
What this means: For entries cleared for YOUR company between Oct 1 and Nov 4 2011, CBP will calculate the "new" higher MPF amount – if the difference between the "old" MPF rate and the "new" MPF rate is greater than $20.00? You will receive a bill from US Customs & Border Protection.
Please do not ignore these billings! If you don't pay? Your continuous bond will be "deactivated" and you will likely face being placed on "National Sanction" by US Customs. This will mean greater costs to you, slower Customs releases, and a great amount of (unnecessary) frustration for you.
Remember - Differences of less than $20 are de minimis and as such will not be processed for retroactive MPF. The exception? Entries flagged for reconciliation will have the MPF increase accounted for via the reconciliation entry. CBP began this process last week and is planning to process up to 20,000 entries per week.
Please contact your local Mainfreight International Inc Customs Brokerage office with any questions. Thank you.


text:
"I really feel like I'm in a good place. I'm in the same place that I
was mentally the last time I stepped into the Octagon." - Joey Beltran
"I hate to steal a saying from a t-shirt," an excited Joey Beltran begins before pausing to correct himself.
"Actually, it started out as the homie Kendall Grove's tattoo. It says, "Only a fighter knows how it feels," and it's true. The only way I feel the most alive, the most at home and safe – as weird as that may sound – the world makes sense when I'm in there fighting. I haven't had that for a long time, and I'm stumbling over my words right now because that's how excited I am to go in there and fight.
"I've never been so excited to get punched in the face."
Wednesday night, Beltran gets the opportunity to step back into the Octagon opposite Brazilian bomber Fabio Maldonado in a light heavyweight matchup that has Fight of the Night written all over it. For Beltran, it's a moment he's been looking forward to for quite some time.
Following his December bout with Igor Pokrajac in Australia, Beltran tested positive for the banned substance nandrolone. The impressive victory he had collected to close out 2012 was overturned and ruled a no contest, and the affable and engaging Californian known as "The Mexicutioner" was handed a nine-month suspension.
"As far as the positive result, I still to this day stand by my statement when I said that I did not inject nandrolone into my body," reiterates Beltran, who will carry a 14-8, 1 NC record into his main card tilt with Maldonado on FOX Sports 1. "Obviously, something bad went into my body, so I have to take responsibility. I don't know what it was, but what I decided to do after about two days of going crazy is just take it like a man, move on, serve my suspension, turn all these lemons into lemonade, and get better.
"I had nine months to get better," he continues. "It's the longest layoff I've had in my career, and it was really a blessing in disguise. I got to re-connect with my family, be there for my teammates as more of a teammate and a brother. I just really focused on my life – outside of fighting also. You're forced to look at things from a different perspective."
One of the things Beltran focused on during his forced hiatus was how he prepares himself for combat.
After more than five years of competing as a professional and three years in the UFC, the 31-year-old Alliance MMA representative tore down his previous approach and rebuilt it from scratch with the help of the all-star cast of coaches and fighters at the elite San Diego facility, and one new addition.
"I crossed paths with a gentleman by the name of Naudi Aguilar," explains Beltran. "The best way I can describe him is a body mechanics coach, and what he introduced to me is a couple basic techniques that I've never had shown to me over all these years of training; stuff like basic myofascial release. He's really taken care of my body, and not doing certain stuff.
"He'd ask me, `Why do you lift weights? Why do you do this? Why do you do that?' and my answer was always, `That's what I'm supposed to do.' (Laughs) I never really could come up with an answer for him. It made me take a step back, think about the way I train, and completely revamp and restructure the way that I train. I honestly feel that meeting this guy has added at least five extra years on top of whatever I would have gotten out of my already pretty broken down body. I feel like I've gotten a new lease on life.
"I'm moving way, way better than I've ever moved in my career in sparring. A couple of the media guys were here filming for Alex (Gustafsson) and (Phil Davis') fight not too long ago against Machida, and they made comments like, `You look way different.' I feel different. (Laughs) I'm working hard. I'm excited."
Despite a 2-3 record in the UFC, there aren't a lot of people rushing to share the cage with Maldonado.
A former professional boxer, the granite-chinned light heavyweight is a punishing puncher, and near impossible to put away, leading some to borrow from Chan Sung Jung and dub him "The Brazilian Zombie." The 33-year-old veteran likes to plant his feet and let his hands fly, and that has Beltran counting down the days until the two warriors share the cage in Barueri, Brazil.
"I really feel like I'm in a good place. I'm in the same place that I was mentally the last time I stepped into the Octagon – I'm really excited, really happy, and I just want to go out there and show what I've got. I've been working hard these last nine months. I kicked the can around – I was pretty depressed for 10 days or so after the result came out – and then after that I was like, `It's time to go to work.'
"Fortunately, I got a good opponent. Unfortunately, he seems like a nice dude and a cool guy," Beltran adds with a laugh. "He's probably my type of guy. Fabio Maldonado seems like the type of guy you want on your side. If you're going to get in a street fight, you probably want somebody like that having your back, but we've got to do the do on October 9.
"This will be my 10th fight inside the Octagon, and the old "Octagon jitters" as Joe Rogan likes to call them are pretty much gone; now its just business. This is where I belong, and this is where I do my thing. I'm excited, I'm pumped up, but at the end of the day, I have a job, and I know what I need to do and the positions I need to put myself into to defeat Fabio Maldonado. Now it's just a matter of going out and getting the job done."
And how does Beltran envision that happening?
"Honestly, I think I'm going to get a submission," says the man who has just a single submission win to his credit thus far." I'm thinking I will stop him in the third round – the middle of the third round. I've been working really hard on that with my coach, Jimmy Harbison. A couple months ago, I was promoted to my purple belt after a lot of years. (Laughs) I put on the gi and worked my way into that promotion, and I wouldn't doubt it.
"It would not surprise me if I went out there and surprised some people, got a submission in the third round… after, of course, a crazy, brutal, knockdown, drag out fight."


text:
FuzzHugger''s Bass Bloom is a harmonically rich pedal that''s capable of creating a spectrum of different fuzz tones that work well with both active and passive basses.
Have you ever wondered what a 2,000-pound bee sounds like? What about the world's largest lightsaber? The answer to both may exist within your bass rig while working the Bass Bloom pedal from FuzzHugger. The Bass Bloom is a harmonically rich fuzz pedal, and it's capable of creating the aforementioned tones, as well as an array of fuzzy, synth-like sounds.
A Box a-Bloomin'
The Bass Bloom is based on
FuzzHugger's Algal Bloom,
their popular fuzz pedal for
guitarists, and its personality
is manipulated through its
five control knobs. The gain
dial determines the amount
of overdrive in the signal,
while the bloom expands the
fuzz tone by adding harmonic
detail and sustain.
Engaging the starve (aka texture) feature, which is controlled with an unmarked knob, adds another dimension to the pedal's fuzzed-out sounds. Turning it clockwise limits the amount of power that reaches the circuit, simulating the sound of a dying battery. And FuzzHugger wisely provides two volume knobs on the unit—one for the clean signal and one for the fuzz. This allows a player to temper the effect while still maintaining the fundamental bass tone. Avoiding the potential hazards of using 9V batteries, this well-designed pedal is powered only with an adaptor. FuzzHugger believes this environmentally friendly and financially beneficial approach optimizes the performance of their pedals.
The Buzz, the Fuzz, and
Some Nasty Bass Face
For this review, I tested the Bass
Bloom by running it through a
Phil Jones D-600 amp and two
Glockenklang 112 cabinets. As
for basses, the pedal was put
through its paces with a Nash
P-style and a fretless Warwick
Jack Bruce Survivor. It's ironic
that lurking within this floral
box are some pretty beastly
sounds. After just a brief period
of knob experimentation, the
variety of tones that came from
the Bass Bloom elicited more
"dude faces" from listeners than
a Keanu Reeves convention.
Manipulating the bloom and gain dials created some formidable fuzz with both basses. Starting with the Warwick fretless, I was able to create tones ranging from synthy P-Funk to flatulent, Les Claypool-like dirt. And when I went to my detuned Nash, boosting the bloom evoked a burly buzz that was capable of handling any stoner-rock gig. I could even cop a Cliff Burton-esque tone by combining the Bass Bloom with a wah pedal. FuzzHugger's latest offering for bassists also tracked low barre chords and double-stops with quickness and definition.
Versatile fuzz tones that preserve the low
end. Solid construction.
Not for fans of 9V power.
Ease of Use:
Limiting the amount of power that reaches the circuit, the starve feature does exactly what its name implies by making the overall tone a bit brittle. To my ears, this control knob seemed most effective up to about the 12 o'clock position. Overall, the Bass Bloom offered endless textures of fuzz, while effectively preserving the low end of both basses.
It Had, Shall We Say,
Intestinal Fortitude
After satisfying my ears in the
more controlled environment
of my practice space, it was
time to bring
the Bass Bloom
to the stage.
And not with
some clean,
rig, but rather
a '70s SVT.
Driven by
the Nash
P through the cranked SVT,
the Bass Bloom sounded like
a swarm of giant bees flying
into a buzz saw. My bandmates
laughed in awe of this mighty
tone—and then asked me
to turn it down. It's a great
feeling when we bassists can
sonically intimidate our guitar
brethren, and the Bass Bloom
proved to be perfectly capable
of doing this.
The Verdict
The FuzzHugger Bass Bloom
allows you to create a spectrum
of different fuzz tones that
work well with both active and
passive basses. Bassists from
rock to funk camps can find a
number of useful sounds within
its responsive controls, all at a
price point that is competitive
with its peers. If you're looking
to transform your bass tone into
a buzzing beast, the Bass Bloom
may belong in your garden.


text:
If ever there was a band that combined the older, established music business with the outlaw frontier that is the internet age, it's First Aid Kit. First coming to global prominence thanks to a cover of a Fleet Foxes song uploaded to YouTube when they were still teenagers, the precocious Söderberg sisters had already received attention in their native Sweden thanks to songs uploaded to their MySpace page. Their key influences – a mix of the classic alt-country singers and their modern angst-ridden counterparts such as Conor Oberst – are those of a generation who have everything at their fingertips, who can flip through albums online, hear the sounds of another part of the world from their bedrooms and collate impressive record collections at the snap of a finger.
However, First Aid Kit have also gone down the traditional route to success – their name has travelled via word of mouth, first via esteemed patrons such as Robin Pecknold and Oberst, and then through the audiences of these artists, down to those strange people who still go out and buy physical copies of records, which means they can celebrate the launch of their third album with a date at the Royal Albert Hall.
That's down to one thing really – those voices. When Johanna and Klara harmonise, it doesn't matter how old they are, or that they're from suburban Stockholm rather than downtown Nashville. Throughout time people have gone weak at the knees for beautiful harmonies, and First Aid Kit can deliver them impeccably.
For Stay Gold, the formula that worked so well on 2012's The Lion Roar is tinkered with slightly, but the basics remain intact. It's all still based around those voices, with producer Mike Mogis pushing them to the forefront throughout. 'Cedar Lane' might build to a climax with swells of lush strings and pedal steel, but they're a mere background swell next to those soaring vocals that carry everything along. Gentle flutes bring 'The Bell' to life, steering the sisters slightly away from their dusty American heartland and towards a lusher, more Celtic folk strand, as if some Van Morrison has been introduced to the playlist alongside Gram and Emmylou, but at heart it's a fireside ballad, sung with gusto.
One of the first things that hits you about First Aid Kit is how such youthful voices are concerned with weighty, aged matters, and lyrically Stay Gold remains on that path. 'Waitress Song' is almost a female counterweight to Fleet Foxes' 'Helplessness Blues' with its desire to escape the modern world in favour of a simple idyllic life. The trio of tracks that open the record, including the currently omnipresent 'My Silver Lining', read like the weary sigh of a musical veteran on the page. "I don't know if I'm scared of dying but I'm scared of living…/Regret, remorse, hold on, oh no I've got to go…" Johanna reflects, an old soul in a twenty-something body. The following 'Master Pretender 'and 'Stay Gold', indeed the rest of the album, follow a similar wizened path.
Such concerns might lead to accusations about authenticity on the part of the photogenic Söderbergs, as if they're playing at this heartbreak lark after hearing a couple of Neil Young albums. Are they simply a Swedish version of Mumford & Sons, some nice pop songs roughed up with pedal steel and a dustbowl makeover?
I wouldn't say so – and even if they are, who are we to say whether that's more 'authentic' than anything else? The old and the ugly don't have a monopoly on heartbreak, and the patronage of Oberst, Pecknold and Jack White suggests that they're pretty convinced about First Aid Kit's talents.
What you definitely can accuse them of, though, is a lack of variety. Hear any of these songs in isolation – and I guarantee they'll be all over a radio near you soon – and they sound fantastic, attention-grabbing and powerful. Heard one after the other, they do tend to blend into a mass of nice-singing-about-heartbreak-sameness.
It might be churlish to suggest that First Aid Kit introduce some rougher edges or explore some other musical avenues, when they've nailed what they do so exquisitely. However, over time they'll have to if they're serious about taking the roads their heroes have travelled.
7Aaron Lavery's Score
9User Score


text:
She's not old enough to walk or talk just yet, but Denise Richards' daughter Eloise Joni has already reached one milestone: owning her first pair of designer jeans.
Slideshow 21 photos
Richards revealed
On Thursday, the 40-year-old actress tweeted a photo of her 16-week-old daughter wearing a pair of cuffed Gucci Baby jeans. The elastic waist stretch denim retails for $265.
PHOTOS: Denise Richards' dating history
Richards has spared no expense spoiling her daughter, whom she adopted earlier this summer. (The "Wild Things" star also has two daughters -- Sam, 7, and Lola, 5 -- from her previous marriage to Charlie Sheen.)
PHOTOS: More celebrity adoptions
The "30 Rock" guest star has been spotted pushing Eloise Joni around in the Orbit Baby Stroller Travel System G2, which features 3D rotation, shock suspension, a removable diaper bag and a UV shade that doubles as a "paparazzi shield."
NEWS: 25 things you don't know about Denise Richards
"She's brought so much joy, and I love her to pieces," Richards gushed to Us Weekly in July. "Eloise is a cuddle bug. She loves being hugged and held. She's such a beautiful little baby and little soul."
Richards obviously has the money, but would you buy $265 jeans for a baby? Tell us on Facebook.